Talk:Commodore 64

Sales figures error

The article states - "Company sales records, however, indicate that the total number was about 12.5 million."

The sited source for this says nothing of the sort, in fact it states that company sales records indicate the number to be 17 million, whilst the original research done by the sited source indicates 12.5 million based on the collecting of serial numbers 86.166.89.91 (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Neutron64's contribution, reverted by Chaheel Riens

curprev 20:25, 12 February 2022‎ Chaheel Riens talk contribs‎ 118,843 bytes −946‎ Undid revision 1071419881 by Neutron64 (talk) what you need is some reliable third party sources to support the inclusion. undo Tag: Undo curprev 14:27, 12 February 2022‎ Neutron64 talk contribs‎ 119,789 bytes +946‎ I have added the UNI64 C64 computers and described how the development of these new C64 computers started. I have not put any links to the manufacturers, because that will probably be seen as advertising, which is not intended. It is only to point out that these computers were developed and exist. It would not be good if they were not mentioned in Wikipedia, because these new developments are unique.

I agree with Chaheel Riens here, (who reverted the contribution while I was investigating the Web store in question, www.uni64.com! lol) The UNI64 "computers" are actually unpopulated PCBs, they do not only lack cases and peripherals, they do not even have major components to make the boards functional. The PCBs have to be populated (apparently) by the user, with with salvaged original Commodore64 parts necessary (Perhaps SID can be replaced with "ARMSID", but this is problematic all around). I suggest Neuron64 look up "notable" and "notability" on Wikipedia. The "uniqueness" of the product is irrelevant to whether it gets included in Wikipedia. New contributions do need third party sources to confirm notability. 75.71.166.197 (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Commodore 64 Mods section or page?

In the last couple of years there's been an increasing number of third-party mods that enhance or change the C-64. I've mentioned a couple here but I am wondering if we should create a new page specific to that which we can refer to rather than this page becoming cumbersome? EggsHam (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Sidebar claims about CIA serial

The sidebar's Connectivity section claims that the CIA chips implemented an RS-232 interface, but researching the subject suggests that it was a bit more generic than that. Should it actually say "GPIO/RS-232/keyboard", or "GPIO/User port serial/Keyboard"? The latter of the two seems more informative to me. Regardless, I suggest that "keyboard" be capitalized. 2602:301:7764:AC00:B6D7:9679:4A33:AFEA (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Commodore Amiga?

As per my comments on the C=128 talk page, it seems to me that the Amiga can be considered a successor to the C=64, form a customer upgrade point of view, whereas from a technical point of view it would be the C=128. None of this is contradicted by my comments on the C=128 talk page, and in fact those comments support this point of view. You are - of course - welcome to have a different point of view, but please discuss it here as part of BRD, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Predecessor/successor, or not one? Editors can't make up their minds which criteria to stick with!

Seeking the opinions of several editors here. Let's make infobox lists of a given device's predecessors and its successors in each article that they can apply to, and this article is one example of many. But what rule(s) should we use to determine what supposedly makes a predecessor or successor or not one? Which would make more sense to you other editors about which devices to include or leave out of one of those lists, and what's the maximum number of devices should we put in the list on one side or/and the other?

For example: this computer model is kind of in the middle of all of Commodore's 8-bit computers, and all of them are similar in at least two ways besides being 8-bit, in that they all run on at least a CPU that's some version of the MOS 6502, and they all run some version of Commodore BASIC. Additional similarities are found in all official releases outside the PET and CBM-II B(usiness) line (the P[ersonal] version, more like a 20 or 64 wasn't officially released), besides the Educator 64, in that they have color graphics and advanced sound, and all of those but the Max Machine are directly compatible with Y/C and composite monitors such as the 1701/'2 and compatible with the most mainstream 15-series disk drives, and probably all the printers that use that same (IEC) port without an interface. And notice that the TED/264's character set is even very similar to the 64 and 128's. So in that sense, all of the 8-bit ones could be seen in the lineup of predecessors and successors, such as this: MOS KIM-1, PET series, CBM-II series (including B128), VIC-20, 64 series, TED/264 series (16, 116, Plus/4), (regular; non-B) 128 series. And then we would head out of the 8-bit world and into the PC series and Amiga series.

But then there are the differences between some of the 8-bit computers that put some of them into different sublines, that have the potential to be seen by some as making them not belong in one big lineup of predecessors and/or successors. For example, the PET series and the B(usiness) version of the CBM-II only have 2 colors: black and green. And while the CBM-II does have a SID, the sound on the PET series is only very elementary. (That makes sense, because the first time I touched a PET was in ELEMENTARY school, ha!) (And then the CBM-II P[ersonal] version not only has the SID but the VIC-II, but wasn't released. I'm just listing it here, but not the also unreleased 65, because the B[usiness] version of the CBM-II, including the B128, was released, so I figured that I should differentiate.) Then the 20, 64, and (non-B-) 128 are in the same subcamp in that they all have SID sound and the VIC-II chip. But while the TED/264 series, which came out between the 64 and and non-B 128, also have multicolor and advanced sound, they do so by way of the TED chip instead of VIC-II and SID, and those have the most colors: 121 instead of just 16! And then the non-B 128 came out, but they included 64 mode with it and went back to using the VIC-II for that reason so it wasn't going to be even more complex than it already would be to keep it 64-compatible, while also adding the VDC and Z-80 anyway. So in this sense we can see that there are a few or several small predecessor/successor lines within the full 8-bit line: MOS KIM-1 in and of itself, PET, CBM-II B, VIC-II, and TED or 264. And then past the 8-bit line, the PC and Amiga.

So which would make more sense to some of you other registered editors, such as somewhat recent ones who have made what appear to me to be somewhat substantial edits of these Commodore articles besides my own, like @Zac67:, @General Ization:, @Bumm13:, and @Sijambo:?

1. To have a jumbled up mess like some of these articles used to, where there was no distinct division between types of computers, where some were accepted as pred/sucs but still others weren't included, with no real rhyme or reason?

2. To accept all the 8-bit computers in one brand, such as Commodore, as one big lineup of pred/sucs but then show some upgrade examples as successors past the 8-bit line, such as PC and Amiga as the (main) 128's successor here at Commodore and the Macintosh as that of II series over there at Apple?

3. To sever all the sublines of a certain brand as not having any pred/sucs outside of themselves due to strict architectural differences, such as here in Commodore: pre-VIC ones only, only ones with a VIC-II, TED ones only, and then especially PC only and Amiga only?

4. Or to fix all of the related articles in one brand up to take on option 3, but make one weird exception that puts one of the machines with a completely different architecture as one oddball exception to the rule from #3, making it still a supposed "successor" with no real basis, even though all the other articles would adhere strictly to option 3?

Whatever we decide to do, let's just make sense of the whole thing by not having different rules for different articles, especially those that are related, because doing so just makes the encyclopedia look inconsistently sloppy, less of a place that people can depend on as a reference tool because one article about a given device insists on saying something about that device is one way while another article insists on it being at least somewhat the opposite of that. What supposed point is there to insist on having mismatches like that when we should be able to correct them easily?

MaxxFordham (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)